Thank you for all the responses: here is the summary.
Deborah Bancroft
QUESTION:
I am wondering whether this list has ever discussed the relative merits of
icons vs. text-only controls in an interface? I am currently doing an
analysis and looking for sources for any testing that has been done on
whether (and which) users respond best to simple text controls (e.g.,
"Delete" ) or iconic controls (e.g., little picture of a trash can)
Please send any responses to me directly and I will be glad to post a
summary to the list.
RESPONSES:
From: Paola Kathuria <[log in to unmask]
To: deborah bancroft <[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:51:37 +0100
I am wondering whether this list has ever discussed the relative
merits of
icons vs. text-only controls in an interface?
Yes, in 2000:
http://listserv.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?S2=chi-web&q=&s=Icons+Text
It's hard to design meaningful icons and so text is often understood
more easily. However, icons are recognised faster than text.
HTML text can be resized, translated and easily changed. An icon
can contain colour which is recognised faster than the icon shape.
The combination of colour, icon and text should therefore
out-perform just icons or just text.
Paola
[log in to unmask]
From: Jeremy Harrington <[log in to unmask]
To: deborah bancroft <[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:49:58 -0500
Deborah,
In my experience in enterprise software interface design I've found that the
combination of the two is preferred. Internationalization and other factors
(culture, color-blindness, accessibility) make relying solely on icons a
mistake. But these factors can also cause problems in a text only
presentation, German and Asian languages in particular can break a text only
UI quickly, especially for toolbar-centric designs. I've seen that icons
with effective, descriptive tooltips work the best.
I tend to focus on designing icons that are learnable. At 16x16 images can
start to look a lot alike, so it's important that variations in the icons be
easily distinguished and colors stand apart, subtlety is not an option at
that size. So if you provide distinguishable images that users can learn
the meaning of via the text attributed to them, ie. tooltips or roll-overs
or even labels at the proper size, then I think you can be successful.
Also try to stick to common visual clues. Desktop users, Windows user
especially, are conditioned from Microsoft to associate images with actions
via the OS and office applications. As a designer I have to accept the fact
that cut, copy, paste and similar actions already have visual elements most
users associate with them, and as such I shouldn't go out of my way to
change those conventions. If you asked those users what the paste image is
they may have never given it any thought, they've just learned the visual
landmarks of that image and associate it with paste. If you need an image
to represent a complex financial transaction or document management function
you know that you can't accurately describe that complex action with 256
pixels, so you create the idea and landmarks that users can come back to.
Hope that helps,
Jeremy
From: "Kilay Reinfeld" <[log in to unmask]
To: "'deborah bancroft'" <[log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:54:44 -0700
Deborah,
I have done much testing on this myself. I work a lot with back-end
interfaces and have tested both. I have received about the same amount
of "HELP REQUESTS" from having only text and only icons. My fix was to
put both and the requests went down to nearly zero. Take a look at what
Windows does with their icons. There is the icon and directly beneath it
is what it does.
TRASH CAN (icon)
Delete (text)
Hope this is helpful!
Kilay
From: "Rahul Singh" <[log in to unmask]
To: "deborah bancroft" <[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:59:01 -0400
Icons can help make interfaces more accessible to people who don't
necessarily communicate in english.
Consistent use of icons can also make an interface more efficient. People
who use computers regularly associate the trashcan icon with delete. It
doesn't need "Delete" text associated with it.
Using icons can reduce the amount of interface as well,which is better in
the long run.
Rahul Singh
Anant Systems, Inc.
From: "Sarah Ingalls" <[log in to unmask]
To: deborah bancroft <[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:12:36 -0500
Hello Deborah -
I have no concrete evidence about this regarding icons vs. text but we have
implemented some standards around BUTTONS versus text. Here is our rule of
thumb (derived from benchmarking we conducted of usability leaders in the
industry):
For actions, such as "delete," we use a button.
For navigation to physical places, such as "go to your account" we use
a link.
I have attached an example from amazon.com which illustrates both standards
on one page. You will notice that "Your Account" is a physical place so a
link has been used (even though the word "Return" is used before it).
"Shopping" is not a physical place so "Continue Shopping" is a button. Most
of the time these rules of thumb work very well.
Please contact me if I have not made myself clear.
(See attached file: AmazonExample.jpg)
Regards,
Sarah Ingalls
Requirements, Analysis and Design
Hallmark.com
From: Marjolein Katsma <[log in to unmask]
To: deborah bancroft <[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Icons vs. text
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:17:05 +0200
Deborah,
At 16:51 2003-06-12, you wrote:
I am wondering whether this list has ever discussed the relative merits of
icons vs. text-only controls in an interface? I am currently doing an
analysis and looking for sources for any testing that has been done on
whether (and which) users respond best to simple text controls (e.g.,
"Delete" ) or iconic controls (e.g., little picture of a trash can)
Once thing should be clear: it depends on your audience.
If you have a US audience then (probably) a picture of a US trash can will
be recognizable. But if your audience is international, only those who
either live in or have visited the US will be able to recognize it *as* a
trash can. (I myself _have_ visited the US (and even worked there) and do
recognize it. But it's doubtful I would have recognized such an icon
*before* I visited the US.
On the other hand it took me years to recognize the icon depicting a US
"mailbox" as such (I've been mainly in cities and you don't see such things
there). Something unclear with a flag on it? I even used an application for
a while that changed the icon to show the flag in different positions. I
never could figure that one out - even when I understood the thing was
supposed to be a "mailbox" - I _still_ don't have a clue what the position
of the flag means!
Of course then there are mail clients that use a picture of an "in box" and
an "out box". Again totally incomprehensible when you've never worked in an
office.
Icons can work - but there should be at least the back up of text labels, or
tooltips, or both. At least you can look up those in a dictionary when you
don't recognize the word. It's impossible to look up icons in a dictionary.
Testing? It's painfully obvious that you won't be able to use an icon when
you don't recognize what it is...
--
Marjolein Katsma [log in to unmask]
Java Woman - http://javawoman.com/
From: "Alexandra Forsythe" <[log in to unmask]
To: <[log in to unmask]
Subject: chi-web
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:38:45 +0100
Hi Deborah,
Your in luck. I've just completed my PhD in the area of icon research.
(From a psychological perspective).
I have not focused specifically on mixed modality icons, or the relative
advantages of using either text or graphics. What I can tell you is that
words used on their own will always be processed slower than pictures.
But for novice users text used with graphics are a real advantage. However,
once users become more familiar with the graphics, the text actually slows
them down.
I have attached some icon references, but if you are interested there is
also some psychology papers I can send you.
Good Luck
Alex
<< mixedmodalityreferences.doc
From: slugolicious <[log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: re: Icons vs. text
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
I don't have any empirical data but rather a personal opinion, but I
like how MS handled the icons in Internet Explorer (one of the few
times I liked how they designed a UI) and the START menu. You can
choose whether you want large or small icons, and whether the icons are
picture only, text only, or picture and text. That allows everyone to
customize it to their personal taste. I personally like to have as
much screen real estate for the application itself and minimize the
buttons and other decorations. In my Internet Explorer window, I only
have the forward/backward buttons, stop, and print preview. They're
displayed as small icons w/o text (because the text took up too much
room). Similarly, I have small icons in the START menu (although they
don't let you choose icons only). I use shortcut keys for a lot of the
functions supplied by buttons. For example, Ctrl+H shows the history
menu so I don't need a history button.
I don't know if that helps you at all.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------